Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Antw: [wifdiscussion] Re: No ZOC Optional Rule

Expand Messages
  • Herbert Gratz
    But it was suicide historically. I doubt that you can make stuffing the border attractive enough to persuade rational gamers - unless you tip the whole thing
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 1 2:18 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      But it was suicide historically. I doubt that you can make stuffing the
      border attractive enough to persuade rational gamers - unless you tip
      the whole thing the other direction and almost guarantee holding the
      pact in 41 which isn't want one would like to see either.

      >>> craftybstd@... 28.02.2005 16:00:13 >>>

      In a message dated 2/28/2005 7:43:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Herbert
      Gratz" <Herbert.Gratz@...> writes:

      >
      >But this can only achieved by a McClellan rule or a significant
      >weakenibg of the surprise rule. (Most likely, not even then I'd still
      >prefer to set-up mostly outside airrange and get a few impulses grace
      >before the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe assault my lines in strength. So
      we
      >are only left with a McClellan rule.
      >

      Disagree. A major purpose of the "garrison ratio" rule for breaking a
      non-aggression pact is to encourage a Soviet forward defense in an
      attempt to prevent the pact from being broken. If a forward defense is
      automatically suicide, then changes should be made to the garrison ratio
      part of the rules, imo.

      Russ




      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Dave LeLacheur
      I disagree Herbert. Trying and failing still will have an effect on German production and deployment in the early game. Germany has to build low quality
      Message 2 of 17 , Mar 1 3:35 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I disagree Herbert. Trying and failing still will have an effect on German
        production and deployment in the early game. Germany has to build low
        quality units instead of all his ARM & MECH in order to break the pact.
        Esp. if using 2d10, that is definitely worth something. The mere threat
        will cause reduced German deployment early on to Italy/Med. and/or
        defending against CW strat bombing, lest the Soviets be able to hold the
        '41 garrison, which is almost certainly a GAME LOST for the Axis. The
        strategy has to be a complete Allied strategy, with the US & CW in full
        compliance and prepared to give massive LL early. But I do not think it
        suicide in the game to do this.

        Cheers,
        Dave L.


        At 11:18 AM +0100 3/1/05, Herbert Gratz wrote:
        >But it was suicide historically. I doubt that you can make stuffing the
        >border attractive enough to persuade rational gamers - unless you tip
        >the whole thing the other direction and almost guarantee holding the
        >pact in 41 which isn't want one would like to see either.
        >
        >>>> craftybstd@... 28.02.2005 16:00:13 >>>
        >
        >In a message dated 2/28/2005 7:43:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Herbert
        >Gratz" <Herbert.Gratz@...> writes:
        >
        >>
        >>But this can only achieved by a McClellan rule or a significant
        >>weakenibg of the surprise rule. (Most likely, not even then I'd still
        >>prefer to set-up mostly outside airrange and get a few impulses grace
        >>before the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe assault my lines in strength. So
        >we
        >>are only left with a McClellan rule.
        >>
        >
        >Disagree. A major purpose of the "garrison ratio" rule for breaking a
        >non-aggression pact is to encourage a Soviet forward defense in an
        >attempt to prevent the pact from being broken. If a forward defense is
        >automatically suicide, then changes should be made to the garrison ratio
        >part of the rules, imo.
        >
        >Russ
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >




        Cheers,

        Dave LeLacheur
        lelacheur@...
        Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader

        --------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
        online business career self-assessment program on the
        internet: CareerLeader.
        --------------------------------------------------------------
      • Herbert Gratz
        Perhaps, I should ve been more precise. What I mean is that a stuff the border strategy which does NOT come off, i.e. allows a GE surprise impulse bun a RU
        Message 3 of 17 , Mar 1 3:44 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Perhaps, I should've been more precise. What I mean is that a stuff the
          border strategy which does NOT come off, i.e. allows a GE surprise
          impulse bun a RU army deployed forward is 'suicide' - and that this was
          the historical situation.
          Trying to stuff the border and making the GE change his build strategy
          and/or deploying forward but then running back in Winter 40 if you're
          not absolutely

          >>> lelacheur@... 01.03.2005 12:35:16 >>>

          I disagree Herbert. Trying and failing still will have an effect on
          German
          production and deployment in the early game. Germany has to build low
          quality units instead of all his ARM & MECH in order to break the
          pact.
          Esp. if using 2d10, that is definitely worth something. The mere
          threat
          will cause reduced German deployment early on to Italy/Med. and/or
          defending against CW strat bombing, lest the Soviets be able to hold
          the
          '41 garrison, which is almost certainly a GAME LOST for the Axis. The
          strategy has to be a complete Allied strategy, with the US & CW in
          full
          compliance and prepared to give massive LL early. But I do not think
          it
          suicide in the game to do this.

          Cheers,
          Dave L.


          At 11:18 AM +0100 3/1/05, Herbert Gratz wrote:
          >But it was suicide historically. I doubt that you can make stuffing
          the
          >border attractive enough to persuade rational gamers - unless you tip
          >the whole thing the other direction and almost guarantee holding the
          >pact in 41 which isn't want one would like to see either.
          >
          >>>> craftybstd@... 28.02.2005 16:00:13 >>>
          >
          >In a message dated 2/28/2005 7:43:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          "Herbert
          >Gratz" <Herbert.Gratz@...> writes:
          >
          >>
          >>But this can only achieved by a McClellan rule or a significant
          >>weakenibg of the surprise rule. (Most likely, not even then I'd
          still
          >>prefer to set-up mostly outside airrange and get a few impulses
          grace
          >>before the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe assault my lines in strength. So
          >we
          >>are only left with a McClellan rule.
          >>
          >
          >Disagree. A major purpose of the "garrison ratio" rule for breaking
          a
          >non-aggression pact is to encourage a Soviet forward defense in an
          >attempt to prevent the pact from being broken. If a forward defense
          is
          >automatically suicide, then changes should be made to the garrison
          ratio
          >part of the rules, imo.
          >
          >Russ
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >




          Cheers,

          Dave LeLacheur
          lelacheur@...
          Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader

          --------------------------------------------------------------
          Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
          online business career self-assessment program on the
          internet: CareerLeader.
          --------------------------------------------------------------





          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Herbert Gratz
          Perhaps I should ve been more precise. What i meant is that stuffing the border and FAILING to prevent a GE DOW is Suicide - and was the historical
          Message 4 of 17 , Mar 1 3:55 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Perhaps I should've been more precise.
            What i meant is that stuffing the border and FAILING to prevent a GE
            DOW is 'Suicide' - and was the historical situation.
            Stuffing the border and making GE change is build strategy and then
            running back if you're not absolutely sure that you can maintain the
            garrison in 41 is a sound strategy.
            IMO it is very risky. In most cases GE will be able to break the
            garrison and RU might find itself in deep doodoo. So, in most cases RU
            builds up a threat but then runs. You can use the time available to
            better effect IMO by taking Persia. But I can see that using this
            strategy to threaten maintaining the pact every game and then running
            will occasionally allow you to in fact maintain the pact because GE has
            become used to RU running and doesn't adjust his builds after all.
            As far as builds are concerned MECH are very good value as they give
            you 2 garrison points for 5 BP, so it is hard to see GER stinting on
            them. Building up GAR and INF isn't a huge problem as you can use them
            to garrison the West/Med and deepen/toughen your line in RU. You need to
            build the minimum of ARM etc. though or advancing in RU will be out of
            question. (unless you catch the Russians up-front and kill their army in
            the DOW turn).


            >>> lelacheur@... 01.03.2005 12:35:16 >>>

            I disagree Herbert. Trying and failing still will have an effect on
            German
            production and deployment in the early game. Germany has to build low
            quality units instead of all his ARM & MECH in order to break the
            pact.
            Esp. if using 2d10, that is definitely worth something. The mere
            threat
            will cause reduced German deployment early on to Italy/Med. and/or
            defending against CW strat bombing, lest the Soviets be able to hold
            the
            '41 garrison, which is almost certainly a GAME LOST for the Axis. The
            strategy has to be a complete Allied strategy, with the US & CW in
            full
            compliance and prepared to give massive LL early. But I do not think
            it
            suicide in the game to do this.

            Cheers,
            Dave L.


            At 11:18 AM +0100 3/1/05, Herbert Gratz wrote:
            >But it was suicide historically. I doubt that you can make stuffing
            the
            >border attractive enough to persuade rational gamers - unless you tip
            >the whole thing the other direction and almost guarantee holding the
            >pact in 41 which isn't want one would like to see either.
            >
            >>>> craftybstd@... 28.02.2005 16:00:13 >>>
            >
            >In a message dated 2/28/2005 7:43:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            "Herbert
            >Gratz" <Herbert.Gratz@...> writes:
            >
            >>
            >>But this can only achieved by a McClellan rule or a significant
            >>weakenibg of the surprise rule. (Most likely, not even then I'd
            still
            >>prefer to set-up mostly outside airrange and get a few impulses
            grace
            >>before the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe assault my lines in strength. So
            >we
            >>are only left with a McClellan rule.
            >>
            >
            >Disagree. A major purpose of the "garrison ratio" rule for breaking
            a
            >non-aggression pact is to encourage a Soviet forward defense in an
            >attempt to prevent the pact from being broken. If a forward defense
            is
            >automatically suicide, then changes should be made to the garrison
            ratio
            >part of the rules, imo.
            >
            >Russ
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >




            Cheers,

            Dave LeLacheur
            lelacheur@...
            Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader

            --------------------------------------------------------------
            Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
            online business career self-assessment program on the
            internet: CareerLeader.
            --------------------------------------------------------------





            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • William Popovich
            Actually, mech is more cost effective than infantry and arm is just as cost effective. Bill P ... From: Dave LeLacheur [mailto:lelacheur@careerleader.com]
            Message 5 of 17 , Mar 1 7:31 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Actually, mech is more cost effective than infantry and arm is just as
              cost effective.

              Bill P

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Dave LeLacheur [mailto:lelacheur@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:35 AM
              To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: Antw: [wifdiscussion] Re: No ZOC Optional Rule

              I disagree Herbert. Trying and failing still will have an effect on
              German
              production and deployment in the early game. Germany has to build low
              quality units instead of all his ARM & MECH in order to break the pact.
              Esp. if using 2d10, that is definitely worth something. The mere threat
              will cause reduced German deployment early on to Italy/Med. and/or
              defending against CW strat bombing, lest the Soviets be able to hold the
              '41 garrison, which is almost certainly a GAME LOST for the Axis. The
              strategy has to be a complete Allied strategy, with the US & CW in full
              compliance and prepared to give massive LL early. But I do not think it
              suicide in the game to do this.

              Cheers,
              Dave L.


              At 11:18 AM +0100 3/1/05, Herbert Gratz wrote:
              >But it was suicide historically. I doubt that you can make stuffing the
              >border attractive enough to persuade rational gamers - unless you tip
              >the whole thing the other direction and almost guarantee holding the
              >pact in 41 which isn't want one would like to see either.
              >
              >>>> craftybstd@... 28.02.2005 16:00:13 >>>
              >
              >In a message dated 2/28/2005 7:43:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Herbert
              >Gratz" <Herbert.Gratz@...> writes:
              >
              >>
              >>But this can only achieved by a McClellan rule or a significant
              >>weakenibg of the surprise rule. (Most likely, not even then I'd still
              >>prefer to set-up mostly outside airrange and get a few impulses grace
              >>before the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe assault my lines in strength. So
              >we
              >>are only left with a McClellan rule.
              >>
              >
              >Disagree. A major purpose of the "garrison ratio" rule for breaking a
              >non-aggression pact is to encourage a Soviet forward defense in an
              >attempt to prevent the pact from being broken. If a forward defense is
              >automatically suicide, then changes should be made to the garrison
              ratio
              >part of the rules, imo.
              >
              >Russ
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >




              Cheers,

              Dave LeLacheur
              lelacheur@...
              Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader

              --------------------------------------------------------------
              Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
              online business career self-assessment program on the
              internet: CareerLeader.
              --------------------------------------------------------------






              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


              ADVERTISEMENT

              <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129d88br0/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/
              D=groups/S=1705059196:HM/EXP=1109763074/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*htt
              p:/www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> click here


              <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=group
              s/S=:HM/A=2593423/rand=736710695>

              _____

              Yahoo! Groups Links
              * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wifdiscussion/

              * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              <mailto:wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

              * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Dave LeLacheur
              Hi Bill, Quite right. You ll note I wrote low quality units ~ meaning MIL and GARs as first German build priority (and MTN I suppose). MECH can follow
              Message 6 of 17 , Mar 1 8:08 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Bill,

                Quite right. You'll note I wrote "low quality units" ~ meaning MIL and
                GARs as first German build priority (and MTN I suppose). MECH can follow
                suit. They're nice, but not as many cfs as ARM, and of course can't force
                the issue against Zhukov. A German army heavy on MIL/GAR/MECH, with
                diminished aircraft support, is what you need to break the garrison ~ and
                this is precisely the kind of force which will have a harder time pushing
                the Soviets around once you do get off the DOW.

                Cheers,
                Dave L.

                At 10:31 AM -0500 3/1/05, William Popovich wrote:
                >Actually, mech is more cost effective than infantry and arm is just as
                >cost effective.
                >
                >Bill P
                >
                >-----Original Message-----
                >From: Dave LeLacheur [mailto:lelacheur@...]
                >Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:35 AM
                >To: wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: Re: Antw: [wifdiscussion] Re: No ZOC Optional Rule
                >
                >I disagree Herbert. Trying and failing still will have an effect on
                >German
                >production and deployment in the early game. Germany has to build low
                >quality units instead of all his ARM & MECH in order to break the pact.
                >Esp. if using 2d10, that is definitely worth something. The mere threat
                >will cause reduced German deployment early on to Italy/Med. and/or
                >defending against CW strat bombing, lest the Soviets be able to hold the
                >'41 garrison, which is almost certainly a GAME LOST for the Axis. The
                >strategy has to be a complete Allied strategy, with the US & CW in full
                >compliance and prepared to give massive LL early. But I do not think it
                >suicide in the game to do this.
                >
                >Cheers,
                >Dave L.
                >
                >
                >At 11:18 AM +0100 3/1/05, Herbert Gratz wrote:
                >>But it was suicide historically. I doubt that you can make stuffing the
                >>border attractive enough to persuade rational gamers - unless you tip
                >>the whole thing the other direction and almost guarantee holding the
                >>pact in 41 which isn't want one would like to see either.
                >>
                >>>>> craftybstd@... 28.02.2005 16:00:13 >>>
                >>
                >>In a message dated 2/28/2005 7:43:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Herbert
                >>Gratz" <Herbert.Gratz@...> writes:
                >>
                >>>
                >>>But this can only achieved by a McClellan rule or a significant
                >>>weakenibg of the surprise rule. (Most likely, not even then I'd still
                >>>prefer to set-up mostly outside airrange and get a few impulses grace
                >>>before the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe assault my lines in strength. So
                >>we
                >>>are only left with a McClellan rule.
                >>>
                >>
                >>Disagree. A major purpose of the "garrison ratio" rule for breaking a
                >>non-aggression pact is to encourage a Soviet forward defense in an
                >>attempt to prevent the pact from being broken. If a forward defense is
                >>automatically suicide, then changes should be made to the garrison
                >ratio
                >>part of the rules, imo.
                >>
                >>Russ
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Cheers,
                >
                >Dave LeLacheur
                >lelacheur@...
                >Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader
                >
                >--------------------------------------------------------------
                >Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
                >online business career self-assessment program on the
                >internet: CareerLeader.
                >--------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                >
                >
                >ADVERTISEMENT
                >
                ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129d88br0/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/
                >D=groups/S=1705059196:HM/EXP=1109763074/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*htt
                >p:/www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075> click here
                >
                >
                ><http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=group
                >s/S=:HM/A=2593423/rand=736710695>
                >
                > _____
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >* To visit your group on the web, go to:
                >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wifdiscussion/
                >
                >* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                >wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                ><mailto:wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                >
                >* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.
                >
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >




                Cheers,

                Dave LeLacheur
                lelacheur@...
                Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader

                --------------------------------------------------------------
                Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
                online business career self-assessment program on the
                internet: CareerLeader.
                --------------------------------------------------------------
              • Dave LeLacheur
                I m essentially agreed this time Herbert. One thing I will say is that if the Soviets are caught on the border, not having faded back, the good news is that
                Message 7 of 17 , Mar 1 8:24 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm essentially agreed this time Herbert. One thing I will say is that if
                  the Soviets are caught on the border, not having faded back, the good news
                  is that it takes Germany quite a few impulses to crush the frontline Soviet
                  troops. If the border stuffing helped prevent the DOW until, say, MJ '41,
                  then the Germans probably won't get moving out of Poland in any numbers
                  until the middle of JA '41. SO '41 weather and turn length will be
                  critical then, as will the 10+ bps LL/turn that the Allies began shipping
                  in JA '41 ;-).

                  In short, in my opinion, the worst case outcome of this strategy for the
                  USSR is still not suicidal. At the very least it is no more suicidal than
                  letting Germany do exactly as she wants, building up the perfect 2d10
                  attack force, and attacking at her leisure in JF '41 in order to get to the
                  Dnepr as MJ '41 dawns.

                  Cheers,
                  Dave L.


                  At 12:55 PM +0100 3/1/05, Herbert Gratz wrote:
                  >Perhaps I should've been more precise.
                  >What i meant is that stuffing the border and FAILING to prevent a GE
                  >DOW is 'Suicide' - and was the historical situation.
                  >Stuffing the border and making GE change is build strategy and then
                  >running back if you're not absolutely sure that you can maintain the
                  >garrison in 41 is a sound strategy.
                  >IMO it is very risky. In most cases GE will be able to break the
                  >garrison and RU might find itself in deep doodoo. So, in most cases RU
                  >builds up a threat but then runs. You can use the time available to
                  >better effect IMO by taking Persia. But I can see that using this
                  >strategy to threaten maintaining the pact every game and then running
                  >will occasionally allow you to in fact maintain the pact because GE has
                  >become used to RU running and doesn't adjust his builds after all.
                  >As far as builds are concerned MECH are very good value as they give
                  >you 2 garrison points for 5 BP, so it is hard to see GER stinting on
                  >them. Building up GAR and INF isn't a huge problem as you can use them
                  >to garrison the West/Med and deepen/toughen your line in RU. You need to
                  >build the minimum of ARM etc. though or advancing in RU will be out of
                  >question. (unless you catch the Russians up-front and kill their army in
                  >the DOW turn).
                  >
                  >
                  >>>> lelacheur@... 01.03.2005 12:35:16 >>>
                  >
                  >I disagree Herbert. Trying and failing still will have an effect on
                  >German
                  >production and deployment in the early game. Germany has to build low
                  >quality units instead of all his ARM & MECH in order to break the
                  >pact.
                  >Esp. if using 2d10, that is definitely worth something. The mere
                  >threat
                  >will cause reduced German deployment early on to Italy/Med. and/or
                  >defending against CW strat bombing, lest the Soviets be able to hold
                  >the
                  >'41 garrison, which is almost certainly a GAME LOST for the Axis. The
                  >strategy has to be a complete Allied strategy, with the US & CW in
                  >full
                  >compliance and prepared to give massive LL early. But I do not think
                  >it
                  >suicide in the game to do this.
                  >
                  >Cheers,
                  >Dave L.
                  >
                  >
                  >At 11:18 AM +0100 3/1/05, Herbert Gratz wrote:
                  >>But it was suicide historically. I doubt that you can make stuffing
                  >the
                  >>border attractive enough to persuade rational gamers - unless you tip
                  >>the whole thing the other direction and almost guarantee holding the
                  >>pact in 41 which isn't want one would like to see either.
                  >>
                  >>>>> craftybstd@... 28.02.2005 16:00:13 >>>
                  >>
                  >>In a message dated 2/28/2005 7:43:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                  >"Herbert
                  >>Gratz" <Herbert.Gratz@...> writes:
                  >>
                  >>>
                  >>>But this can only achieved by a McClellan rule or a significant
                  >>>weakenibg of the surprise rule. (Most likely, not even then I'd
                  >still
                  >>>prefer to set-up mostly outside airrange and get a few impulses
                  >grace
                  >>>before the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe assault my lines in strength. So
                  >>we
                  >>>are only left with a McClellan rule.
                  >>>
                  >>
                  >>Disagree. A major purpose of the "garrison ratio" rule for breaking
                  >a
                  >>non-aggression pact is to encourage a Soviet forward defense in an
                  >>attempt to prevent the pact from being broken. If a forward defense
                  >is
                  >>automatically suicide, then changes should be made to the garrison
                  >ratio
                  >>part of the rules, imo.
                  >>
                  >>Russ
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Cheers,
                  >
                  >Dave LeLacheur
                  >lelacheur@...
                  >Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader
                  >
                  >--------------------------------------------------------------
                  >Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
                  >online business career self-assessment program on the
                  >internet: CareerLeader.
                  >--------------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >




                  Cheers,

                  Dave LeLacheur
                  lelacheur@...
                  Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader

                  --------------------------------------------------------------
                  Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
                  online business career self-assessment program on the
                  internet: CareerLeader.
                  --------------------------------------------------------------
                • incywif
                  I disagree with your analysis. In 1941, germany needs volume, not quality. Germany needs as many combat factors on the border as possible. Germany does not
                  Message 8 of 17 , Mar 3 3:24 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I disagree with your analysis.

                    In 1941, germany needs volume, not quality. Germany needs as many
                    combat factors on the border as possible. Germany does not need many
                    high-quality land units in 41, as long as they dominate in the air
                    and have better mobility. I'd way prefer 3 MIL to one arm, or 2
                    extra INF + 1 MIL to Rommel, for instance.

                    -Best builds for fighting barb -41 are MECH (assuming 2d10), MIL,
                    INF, PIL, LND2.
                    -Good builds for breaking garrission is PIL, GAR, MIL, MNT, then
                    MECH, then INF, ARM. Bad builds are air units, HQ's, DIVs, navy,
                    italian LL, ART

                    If you have problems breaking the pact, don't forget you can align
                    in Hungary, then break pact and DOW USSR. Plus there are things you
                    can do with Italy, if you planned ahead. You can also rebase in
                    planes, and temporarily empty out your reserve pool to boost
                    garrission.

                    Ingebrigt

                    --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Dave LeLacheur
                    <lelacheur@c...> wrote:
                    > I disagree Herbert. Trying and failing still will have an effect
                    on German
                    > production and deployment in the early game. Germany has to build
                    low
                    > quality units instead of all his ARM & MECH in order to break the
                    pact.
                    > Esp. if using 2d10, that is definitely worth something. The mere
                    threat
                    > will cause reduced German deployment early on to Italy/Med. and/or
                    > defending against CW strat bombing, lest the Soviets be able to
                    hold the
                    > '41 garrison, which is almost certainly a GAME LOST for the Axis.
                    The
                    > strategy has to be a complete Allied strategy, with the US & CW in
                    full
                    > compliance and prepared to give massive LL early. But I do not
                    think it
                    > suicide in the game to do this.
                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    > Dave L.
                    >
                    >
                    > At 11:18 AM +0100 3/1/05, Herbert Gratz wrote:
                    > >But it was suicide historically. I doubt that you can make
                    stuffing the
                    > >border attractive enough to persuade rational gamers - unless you
                    tip
                    > >the whole thing the other direction and almost guarantee holding
                    the
                    > >pact in 41 which isn't want one would like to see either.
                    > >
                    > >>>> craftybstd@a... 28.02.2005 16:00:13 >>>
                    > >
                    > >In a message dated 2/28/2005 7:43:03 AM Eastern Standard
                    Time, "Herbert
                    > >Gratz" <Herbert.Gratz@o...> writes:
                    > >
                    > >>
                    > >>But this can only achieved by a McClellan rule or a significant
                    > >>weakenibg of the surprise rule. (Most likely, not even then I'd
                    still
                    > >>prefer to set-up mostly outside airrange and get a few impulses
                    grace
                    > >>before the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe assault my lines in strength.
                    So
                    > >we
                    > >>are only left with a McClellan rule.
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >Disagree. A major purpose of the "garrison ratio" rule for
                    breaking a
                    > >non-aggression pact is to encourage a Soviet forward defense in an
                    > >attempt to prevent the pact from being broken. If a forward
                    defense is
                    > >automatically suicide, then changes should be made to the
                    garrison ratio
                    > >part of the rules, imo.
                    > >
                    > >Russ
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Cheers,
                    >
                    > Dave LeLacheur
                    > lelacheur@c...
                    > Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader
                    >
                    > --------------------------------------------------------------
                    > Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
                    > online business career self-assessment program on the
                    > internet: CareerLeader.
                    > --------------------------------------------------------------
                  • jerome_trift
                    Ingebrigt, ... I m not sure I understand it well. Furthermore, I disagree with some of Dave s points. Due to some previous experience (4 games with different
                    Message 9 of 17 , Mar 3 5:12 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ingebrigt,

                      Could you please clarify what you mean by:
                      > If you have problems breaking the pact, don't forget you can align
                      > in Hungary, then break pact and DOW USSR.

                      I'm not sure I understand it well.

                      Furthermore, I disagree with some of Dave's points. Due to some
                      previous experience (4 games with different gaming groups):
                      - Russia holding the Pact in 41 doesn't "almost certainly" mean a
                      game lost for the Axis
                      - Russia doesn't need LL to hold the Pact in 41. The Wallies would
                      better keep their BPs for some actions on the western front.

                      Jerome
                    • Dave LeLacheur
                      Hi Jerome, Clarification: I meant that the W Allies had better be prepared to send heaps of LL if the garrison is broken in 1941. Supplementing the Soviets
                      Message 10 of 17 , Mar 3 6:30 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Jerome,

                        Clarification: I meant that the W Allies had better be prepared to send
                        heaps of LL if the garrison is broken in 1941. Supplementing the Soviets
                        early with US Resources to USSR is helpful too.

                        Could you describe a game in which the Soviets held the 1941 garrison
                        despite German intentions otherwise? What did the Axis do?

                        Ingebrigt, your & Jerome's points noted, but I'm not changing my mind just
                        yet ;-).

                        Cheers,
                        Dave L.



                        At 1:12 PM +0000 3/3/05, jerome_trift wrote:
                        >Ingebrigt,
                        >
                        >Could you please clarify what you mean by:
                        >> If you have problems breaking the pact, don't forget you can align
                        >> in Hungary, then break pact and DOW USSR.
                        >
                        >I'm not sure I understand it well.
                        >
                        >Furthermore, I disagree with some of Dave's points. Due to some
                        >previous experience (4 games with different gaming groups):
                        >- Russia holding the Pact in 41 doesn't "almost certainly" mean a
                        >game lost for the Axis
                        >- Russia doesn't need LL to hold the Pact in 41. The Wallies would
                        >better keep their BPs for some actions on the western front.
                        >
                        >Jerome
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >




                        Cheers,

                        Dave LeLacheur
                        lelacheur@...
                        Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader

                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
                        online business career self-assessment program on the
                        internet: CareerLeader.
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                      • jerome_trift
                        Last game, nearly all options except Oil (a big one) and ENG. Ge ready to DoW Russia in 41 (France fell S/O 40 with very few losses) but Ge unable to
                        Message 11 of 17 , Mar 3 6:45 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Last game, nearly all options except Oil (a big one) and ENG.
                          Ge ready to DoW Russia in 41 (France fell S/O 40 with very few
                          losses) but Ge unable to out-garrisson Russia in 41 (although builds
                          were planned accordingly).
                          so, Ge hold pact till J/F 44.
                          Not a fun game for both Russia and Germany for almost 2 years ...
                          but more annoying in the end for Russia than for Germany.
                          Russia starts at her border in 44 with pretty much all the german
                          force pool on the map.
                          After that it's a question of tough defense, OC and luck ...

                          However, I have to admit that playing with Oil might change this,
                          with Ge being able to hold the pact only in 42 and early 43 but not
                          till 44.

                          Jerome

                          --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Dave LeLacheur >
                          > Could you describe a game in which the Soviets held the 1941
                          garrison
                          > despite German intentions otherwise? What did the Axis do?
                          >
                        • Dave LeLacheur
                          Oh yeah, I remember you mentioning this game. How far did the Russians get, or is the game still ongoing? Cheers, Dave L. ... Cheers, Dave LeLacheur
                          Message 12 of 17 , Mar 3 7:17 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Oh yeah, I remember you mentioning this game. How far did the Russians
                            get, or is the game still ongoing?

                            Cheers,
                            Dave L.

                            At 2:45 PM +0000 3/3/05, jerome_trift wrote:
                            >Last game, nearly all options except Oil (a big one) and ENG.
                            >Ge ready to DoW Russia in 41 (France fell S/O 40 with very few
                            >losses) but Ge unable to out-garrisson Russia in 41 (although builds
                            >were planned accordingly).
                            >so, Ge hold pact till J/F 44.
                            >Not a fun game for both Russia and Germany for almost 2 years ...
                            >but more annoying in the end for Russia than for Germany.
                            >Russia starts at her border in 44 with pretty much all the german
                            >force pool on the map.
                            >After that it's a question of tough defense, OC and luck ...
                            >
                            >However, I have to admit that playing with Oil might change this,
                            >with Ge being able to hold the pact only in 42 and early 43 but not
                            >till 44.
                            >
                            >Jerome
                            >
                            >--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Dave LeLacheur >
                            >> Could you describe a game in which the Soviets held the 1941
                            >garrison
                            >> despite German intentions otherwise? What did the Axis do?
                            >>
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >




                            Cheers,

                            Dave LeLacheur
                            lelacheur@...
                            Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader

                            --------------------------------------------------------------
                            Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
                            online business career self-assessment program on the
                            internet: CareerLeader.
                            --------------------------------------------------------------
                          • jerome_trift
                            Dave, The game is still on-going. Next session, we ll be playing the 7th impulse (Axis) of S/0 44 (weather roll 10, end of turn on a 3). The Russian are still
                            Message 13 of 17 , Mar 3 7:28 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dave,

                              The game is still on-going. Next session, we'll be playing the 7th
                              impulse (Axis) of S/0 44 (weather roll 10, end of turn on a 3).
                              The Russian are still pretty much on the same hexes as the ones they
                              occupied before the start of the war - ie.: J/F 44 ... IRC, they won
                              only one hex in Rumania in 3 turns and a half and not a single one
                              elsewhere ... although they spent 4 or 5 OCs. Germany spent one OC
                              to recapture one hex on the Vistula. Germany has still 3 OCs left.

                              The US decided early on for a Japan first strategy. So Japan is dead
                              and control only Rabaul and Tokyo (US are in Hokkaido).
                              On the other hand, Italy is still alive (and with full force pool on
                              map) and the Wallies had to make two tries for D-Day.
                              First one was repulsed in M/J 44 IRC between Boulogne and Antwerp.
                              Second one was successfull in Britanny in J/A 44.
                              The Wallies are spending on average 3-4 OCs per turn, Paris is still
                              3-4 hexes away for them and the weather is ugly.

                              We hope to finish the game in April/May.

                              Jerome

                              --- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Dave LeLacheur
                              <lelacheur@c...> wrote:
                              > Oh yeah, I remember you mentioning this game. How far did the
                              Russians
                              > get, or is the game still ongoing?
                              >
                              > Cheers,
                              > Dave L.
                              >
                              > At 2:45 PM +0000 3/3/05, jerome_trift wrote:
                              > >Last game, nearly all options except Oil (a big one) and ENG.
                              > >Ge ready to DoW Russia in 41 (France fell S/O 40 with very few
                              > >losses) but Ge unable to out-garrisson Russia in 41 (although
                              builds
                              > >were planned accordingly).
                              > >so, Ge hold pact till J/F 44.
                              > >Not a fun game for both Russia and Germany for almost 2 years ...
                              > >but more annoying in the end for Russia than for Germany.
                              > >Russia starts at her border in 44 with pretty much all the german
                              > >force pool on the map.
                              > >After that it's a question of tough defense, OC and luck ...
                              > >
                              > >However, I have to admit that playing with Oil might change this,
                              > >with Ge being able to hold the pact only in 42 and early 43 but
                              not
                              > >till 44.
                              > >
                              > >Jerome
                              > >
                              > >--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Dave LeLacheur >
                              > >> Could you describe a game in which the Soviets held the 1941
                              > >garrison
                              > >> despite German intentions otherwise? What did the Axis do?
                              > >>
                            • Dave LeLacheur
                              Thanks Jerome. What did Germany and Italy do in 42 & 43? Was there a big Battle of the Atlantic, or ? Cheers, Dave L. ... Cheers, Dave LeLacheur
                              Message 14 of 17 , Mar 3 12:53 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Thanks Jerome. What did Germany and Italy do in '42 & '43? Was there a
                                big Battle of the Atlantic, or ?

                                Cheers,
                                Dave L.

                                At 3:28 PM +0000 3/3/05, jerome_trift wrote:
                                >Dave,
                                >
                                >The game is still on-going. Next session, we'll be playing the 7th
                                >impulse (Axis) of S/0 44 (weather roll 10, end of turn on a 3).
                                >The Russian are still pretty much on the same hexes as the ones they
                                >occupied before the start of the war - ie.: J/F 44 ... IRC, they won
                                >only one hex in Rumania in 3 turns and a half and not a single one
                                >elsewhere ... although they spent 4 or 5 OCs. Germany spent one OC
                                >to recapture one hex on the Vistula. Germany has still 3 OCs left.
                                >
                                >The US decided early on for a Japan first strategy. So Japan is dead
                                >and control only Rabaul and Tokyo (US are in Hokkaido).
                                >On the other hand, Italy is still alive (and with full force pool on
                                >map) and the Wallies had to make two tries for D-Day.
                                >First one was repulsed in M/J 44 IRC between Boulogne and Antwerp.
                                >Second one was successfull in Britanny in J/A 44.
                                >The Wallies are spending on average 3-4 OCs per turn, Paris is still
                                >3-4 hexes away for them and the weather is ugly.
                                >
                                >We hope to finish the game in April/May.
                                >
                                >Jerome
                                >
                                >--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Dave LeLacheur
                                ><lelacheur@c...> wrote:
                                >> Oh yeah, I remember you mentioning this game. How far did the
                                >Russians
                                >> get, or is the game still ongoing?
                                >>
                                >> Cheers,
                                >> Dave L.
                                >>
                                >> At 2:45 PM +0000 3/3/05, jerome_trift wrote:
                                >> >Last game, nearly all options except Oil (a big one) and ENG.
                                >> >Ge ready to DoW Russia in 41 (France fell S/O 40 with very few
                                >> >losses) but Ge unable to out-garrisson Russia in 41 (although
                                >builds
                                >> >were planned accordingly).
                                >> >so, Ge hold pact till J/F 44.
                                >> >Not a fun game for both Russia and Germany for almost 2 years ...
                                >> >but more annoying in the end for Russia than for Germany.
                                >> >Russia starts at her border in 44 with pretty much all the german
                                >> >force pool on the map.
                                >> >After that it's a question of tough defense, OC and luck ...
                                >> >
                                >> >However, I have to admit that playing with Oil might change this,
                                >> >with Ge being able to hold the pact only in 42 and early 43 but
                                >not
                                >> >till 44.
                                >> >
                                >> >Jerome
                                >> >
                                >> >--- In wifdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, Dave LeLacheur >
                                >> >> Could you describe a game in which the Soviets held the 1941
                                >> >garrison
                                >> >> despite German intentions otherwise? What did the Axis do?
                                >> >>
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >




                                Cheers,

                                Dave LeLacheur
                                lelacheur@...
                                Director of Operations and Customer Service, CareerLeader

                                --------------------------------------------------------------
                                Visit http://www.careerleader.com to preview the best
                                online business career self-assessment program on the
                                internet: CareerLeader.
                                --------------------------------------------------------------
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.